1921-23 E220 National Caramel Dating Re-evaluation

[rhettyeakley]

The Herb Pennock thread got me thinking about the E220 set and it's proposed date of 1921-23. This was an assumption made by Lew Lipset in his Encyclopedia many years ago. It seems like we should revisit this set and try to re-establish the date a little more concrete.

The set states on the back that there are 120 subjects, which is actually VERY accurate considering most of these sets were not that accurate (see E121 Series of 80). The E220 is known to include 115 diff subjects w/ 5 being featured on two different poses.

This has been a fairly popular set with "Rookie" collectors for a while because of that pesky 1921 date, which I propose it not accurate.

Due to the fact there are 120 different cards known and the back says there were 120 subjects what then leads us to believe these were distributed over many years w/ changes? There are actually two different backs known that I pointed out a few years ago which are a bit tough to distinguish so there were at least 2 "printings" but one would think that if they were updating this set a la the E121 series of 80 then we would have been left w/ more than the 120 known cards that we know of as they elimated one player to add another.

The players:
A few players began their career w/ a particular team in 1922 (I see no cards where 1923 is the earliest poss date)...

-George J. Burns (Cincinnati)
-Joe Dugan (Boston Red Sox)

This would lead us to conclude that the set was at the earliest made in 1922

The following are the "anamolies" in the set as they were done with their careers (or with that team) before the the 1922 season (date is last year w/ that team)

-George H. Burns (Cleveland) 1921
-Shano Collins (Red Sox) 1920
-Art Fletcher (Ginats) 1920
-Larry Kopf (Reds) 1921
-George Pakert (Cubs) 1920
-Scott Perry (A's) 1921
-Everett Scott (Red Sox) 1921
-Vernon Spencer (Giants) 1920
-Whitey Witt (A's) 1921

It has long been established that the FIRST year a player is with a team is the way to determine the date of a set and not the LAST year they are with a team as the manufacturer could have just been working with outdated info.

This is obviously a wierd set as they were up to date on many players' movements but a few (specifically Collins, Fletcher, Paskert and Spencer) were fairly well out of date. I would propose the MOST LIKELY DATE OF THIS SET IS 1922 NOT 1921-23 like previously stated. This isn't going to be too popular with those Rookie Card guys but I believe it to be more accurate.

Thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc are all welcome. I admittedly haven't put too much time into this so feel free to disagree with anything I have said!!!

-Rhett

[rhettyeakley]

I mentioned the two different backs for this sets so I figured I'd show you what they looked like.

-The top one has overall smaller writing and the first "B" in the "Base Ball Stars" line is directly under the first "s" in the word "consists" in the top line

-The lower example has the "B" directly under the second "s" in "consists" of the first line.

Anyways, I'm not sure what this adds to what I stated above, but while we are on the topic I figured I'd throw it out there.

-Rhett

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rhett:

After researching the players you mentioned in my Total Baseball Encyclopedia, I don't see that it would make sense for those players' cards to have all been issued in 1922 or later and not in 1921, too many exceptions IMHO. However, I haven't taken the time to research any other players in the set.

Although it might not be the case in this instance, it appears that lately on this forum, a number of posters seem to be going out of their way to criticize "Rookie Card" collectors and try to find fault with specific dates of specific sets, seemingly in an effort to create doubt amongst "Rookike Card" collectors as to what constitutes a "Rookie Card" and I think that this practice will ultimately discourage collectors from pursuing this type of collection.

[HRBAKER]

Phil,
That is an interesting observation and one I had not noticed. I don't think that many will be deterred by earnest scholarship of the type that normally goes on here. I think that if anything more people may be deterred by the lack of consensus on what is a card and a "rookie" card for that matter. I am not sure many people agree on those as a primer, all MHO. BTW, I love that Pennock photo.

Jeff

[rhettyeakley]

Phil, where did I "criticize" Rookie card collectors? I simply stated that if one had paid a premium for an E220 for the 1921 date then they probably wouldn't like the theory that these are from 1922 and not 1921. You should know me better than that by now I think, there is no "right way" to collect cards, whether you collect Rookie's, Minor Leaguers, PSA 8's, or anything else it is up to each of us to figure out what floats our boat.

As to your point about too many exceptions, you and I are in disagreement. My premise is that if the E220's were produced at ONE TIME, which the fact that the back states 120 subjects and there are exactly 120 cards known today would indicate then it doesn't matter how many exceptions there are as unless the National Caramel guys could look into the future they couldn't have known that those two players I pointed out earlier (Burns (Cin) and Dugan (Red Sox)) would be with those teams in 1922, thus making 1922 the earliest possible date for the issue.

-Rhett

[brianp-beme]

I haven't done any research on the players in the E220 set, but I know there is a third variation of backs out there. This variation has the backs switched...instead of reading top to bottom, they read bottom to top.

Is it possible that National Caramel had separate 120 card runs of these at different dates? It looks like if this is the case they didn't change any of the player info, just the backs. If so, Rhett's theory would still work (dependent upon thorough examination of all the player's) in that the earliest examples would have to be considered based upon the team designations that pinpoint a later date. Having collected these for many years I don't know of any glaring rarities in the set, though as usual some have been tougher to come by.

Brian